editorial Handout time in the nation’s capital Federal emphasis on sewage plant construction funds ignores cheaper routes to better pollution control
W
ashington is a crazy place sometimes. Well, all right, all the time, And when it comes to parceling out federal funds, the capital city is seen at its zenith of zaniness. When a new version of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act eventually emerges from Congress-if it ever does; the present act has been temporarily extended twice already-it is likely to contain authorization for billions of dollars for the construction of new sewage treatment plants, but not a bean for operation. Not that previous versions of the act ever authorized anything for operating costs, mind you, but the emphasis on capital cost to the exclusion of operating costs is one that merits examination. For the success or failure of a sewage treatment plant depends as much on operation as on design. Even a well-designed plant will not operate properly unless the people in charge of it know-and care-about what they are doing. Federal law generally recognizes this need by providing small sums of money to be used for training operating personnel. However. Congress appears otherwise strangely unaware that there is anything more to running a sewage treatment plant than building it in the first place. By emphasizing capital cost alone, it may not be allocating federal funds effectively. For instance, the E P A has recently promised that some of future appropriated capital construction funds will be used to build plants for phosphate removal. What seems to be assumed in this promise is that it is necessary to build a new plant for the purpose. As many of our readers and, indeed, E P A and CEQ know, it is entirely feasible to remove phosphate through modification of operating procedures, addition of chemicals at appropriate treatment stages, and the like. However, such operating modifications are not eligible for funds under present or contemplated federal law. There are other aspects of sewage treatment that bear examination in the same light. For
example, it is a well-known fact that combined storm and sanitary sewer systems regularly overload treatment plants during heavy rains, often necessitating bypassing of raw sewage to a waterway. What is not so well-known is that some uncombined sewer systems leak so badly during rains that infiltrating groundwater bolsters sewage flow to three to five times dry weather rates. It is the contention of firms in the business of upgrading sewer systems that they could provide more real progress, at lower cost than lump-sum grants, to build or enlarge existing plants. One could extend this critique of effectiveness of spending to most areas of pollution control. How many incinerators, for instance, have been shut down because they simply were not operated properly and consequently emitted excessive amounts of soot? We know, of course, that incineration is something of a black art, but are nevertheless impressed by the claim of one of our readers that incinerator operation could be vastly improved by the simple expedients of operator-training and small changes in supplying secondary combustion air. We do not intend to get into the argument over whether the federal government should indeed be in the business of supplying funds for municipalities, intriguing and germane though that argument may be. The fact is that the feds are in that business and are likely to continue to be. Nor, of course, do we argue that no new sewage treatment plants are needed-obviously very many are. What we are concerned over is the simplistic approach to spending money. For funding approaches that do not provide incentives for improved operation of existing facilities may backfire badly. And we all would be literally the poorer for that.
Volume 5, Number 11, November 1971 1071
